Re: Number of writing systems

At 05:10 +0000 2005-09-26, suzmccarth wrote:

> > If you think about it you might suppose that it must have been
>> because someone thought that regular rotations and superscription of
> > base characters was a regular way of indicating relationships.
>
>It *is* a regular way of indicating relationships, and Syllabics is
>as systematic as Hangul - I don't know what that was all about. It
>is just that 'featural' has had a different use in linguistics for
>some time.

Has it, indeed. You know what? All linguists do not share the same
opinions, or the same definitions. But maybe you're too young to
remember the Hell that was Chomskyan "linguistics".

>Anyway, at least I can quote this and say that this is what you were
>trying to say.

What *I* was trying to say?
--
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com